Talk:The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún

[Untitled]

Can you someone please find out why it was never published??? Thanks

I don't really feel confident changing the article but I found a newspaper article that says it was "possibly found in the same wastepaper basket that last year's The Children Of Húrin came from". So take a look at the The Children of Húrin and J._R._R._Tolkien#Posthumous_publications.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the book now published sheds some light on this question. But although I do not (yet) have a copy of the book, I will try to give an answer: In a letter written in 1967 to W. H. Auden (Letters from J. R. R. Tolkien no 295), Tolkien says he will send the poems in question to Auden if he can find them. There is no clear indication wether he did find them, but in my opinion it is quite possible that he had mislaid them entirely. Furthermore, the poems possibly never were intended for publication. In the letter to Auden he rather calls them an ‘attempt’ (this is not a quote, I only have the German translation of the Letters available at the moment!). And after Tolkiens death, C.T. first tended to the legendarium-material in detail and length, so the poems had to wait. —134.93.50.217 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

poem

is it really a long poem? 300 pages poem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.206.28 (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. The book isn't very long, much of it is non-poem material, the font is large, the margins huge, and the horrid newline-on-caesura scheme doubles the length. I'd peg it at more like 50 pages. --Gwern (contribs) 15:40 19 May 2010 (GMT)

Well, then I wasn't far off in my wondering if the entire book had been typed out on the article page. It's so long I was put off from reading it. The entire Lord Of The Rings page's synopsis section pales in comparison to the length this article's plot section, though The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún book is some 25 times shorter. 99.22.228.93 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, .93 is right, the plot section is far too long. Anyone who feels like pruning it, go right ahead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Audiobook released now?

Has the audiobook been released by now? August 2009 was one year ago, but I can't find any real info on an audio version. Please correct and/or expand that section. Thanks? -- 217.190.222.138 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No Connection to Wagner?

In response to the question of Tolkien's famous Lord of The Rings having MANY Wagnerian elements, he claimed that it was mere coincidence and he neither took nor adapted anything from Wagner's stories. Yet here we are with a adaptation of the Germanic Sagas, just as Wagner did. What is the real story here?184.155.138.213 (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You said it yourself. This is an adaptation of the Germanic sagas--primarily, if not exclusively, the Norse material. In other words, Tolkien uses the same sources (or some of the same sources) as Wagner to come up with his version of the Volsung/Niflung legend. It is nonetheless at least as different from Wagner as Wagner's Ring Cycle is from the original materials. The same applies to his Middle-Earth work. He could have been inspired by or drawn upon the Germanic sagas without reference to anything Wagner did. Because they drew upon the same source material, it would hardly be surprising that Tolkien's work might include "Wagnerian elements." Spiderboy12 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Norse or Germanic..

There's some confusion in the lead section - it states "were inspired by the legend of Sigurd and the fall of the Niflungs in Norse mythology.", but the relevant main Norse source (for Sigurd) is Völsunga saga and others whilst the main german source is Nibelungenlied. Other "norse" sources are translations from the german..

This just needs clarifying, which of the sources are used ... 5.198.10.236 (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)